Defining the knowledge units of a synthetic language: comment on Vokey and Brooks (1992)

Vokey and Brooks (1992) reported a set of experiments intended to demonstrate that judgments of grammaticality are determined by two characteristics of the test items: their similarity with a specific study item and their conformity with an abstract representation of the generative grammar. I argue that both effects may be encompassed within a unified account, which requires neither a specific-item retrieval process nor an abstractive capacity. My basic assumption is that the primary knowledge units are not whole strings of letters, as postulated in models relying on specific similarity or abstraction, but rather fragments of 2 or 3 letters. Partial memorization of these small units provides a convenient account of the whole pattern of Vokey and Brooks's findings because study items have more units in common with similar than with dissimilar test items, and likewise with grammatical than with ungrammatical ones

[1]  A. Reber,et al.  Implicit learning: An analysis of the form and structure of a body of tacit knowledge , 1977, Cognition.

[2]  R. Mathews.  The Forgetting Algorithm: How Fragmentary Knowledge of Exemplars Can Abstract Knowledge , 1991 .

[3]  R. A. Carlson,et al.  A case of syntactical learning and judgment: How conscious and how abstract? , 1984 .

[4]  G. Bower,et al.  Storage and later recognition of exemplars of concepts , 1973 .

[5]  P. Perruchet,et al.  A Reinterpretation of Some Earlier Evidence for Abstractiveness of Implicitly Acquired Knowledge , 1992 .

[6]  A. Reber.  Transfer of syntactic structure in synthetic languages. , 1969 .

[7]  Robert C. Mathews,et al.  Abstractness of implicit grammar knowledge: comments on Perruchet and Pacteau's analysis of synthetic grammar learning , 1990 .

[8]  Arthur S. Reber,et al.  Analogic and abstraction strategies in synthetic grammar learning: A functionalist interpretation , 1978, Cognition.

[9]  L. Barsalou.  On the indistinguishability of exemplar memory and abstraction in category representation , 1990 .

[10]  D. Shanks,et al.  Characteristics of dissociable human learning systems , 1994, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[11]  E. Rosch,et al.  Cognition and Categorization , 1980 .

[12]  R. Mathews,et al.  Role of Implicit and Explicit Processes in Learning From Examples: A Synergistic Effect , 1989 .

[13]  F. Hayes-Roth,et al.  Concept learning and the recognition and classification of exemplars , 1977 .

[14]  M. Moscovitch,et al.  Attention and Performance 15: Conscious and Nonconscious Information Processing , 1994 .

[15]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Learning Artificial Grammars With Competitive Chunking , 1990 .

[16]  P. G. Neumann.  An attribute frequency model for the abstraction of prototypes , 1974, Memory & cognition.

[17]  G. Logan.  Toward an instance theory of automatization. , 1988 .

[18]  D. Broadbent,et al.  Interactive tasks and the implicit‐explicit distinction , 1988 .

[19]  Douglas L. Medin,et al.  Context theory of classification learning. , 1978 .

[20]  L. Brooks,et al.  Nonanalytic Cognition: Memory, Perception, and Concept Learning , 1984 .

[21]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Memory and cognition , 1977 .

[22]  Pierre Perruchet,et al.  Synthetic grammar learning: Implicit rule abstraction or explicit fragmentary knowledge? Journal of , 1990 .

[23]  D Broadbent,et al.  Implicit and explicit knowledge bases in artificial grammar learning. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[24]  John R. Vokey,et al.  Abstract analogies and abstracted grammars: Comments on Reber (1989) and Mathews et al. (1989). , 1991 .

[25]  U. Neisser.  Concepts and Conceptual Development: Ecological and Intellectual Factors in Categorization , 1989 .

[26]  John R. Vokey,et al.  Salience of Item Knowledge in Learning Artificial Grammars , 1992 .

[27]  A. Reber.  Implicit learning of artificial grammars , 1967 .

[28]  A. Reber.  Implicit learning and tacit knowledge , 1993 .